IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 19 October 2012 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836DF21F879E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ftedeo2g8NE5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA1A21F879B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q9JIBgM3027395 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:11:42 -0700
Received: from XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-01.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.70.222]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q9JIBftn027392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:11:41 -0700
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.120]) by XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.70.222]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:11:55 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:11:54 -0700
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop
Thread-Index: Ac2t5wgicxX5mqm/Qi+ma4jwR6NBQAAPUnHQ
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DF5C66F@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <201210161245.q9GCj0i26478@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DEDF3A2@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <507DA6A3.20807@inex.ie> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DEDF3C3@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <507DAB13.2010704@inex.ie> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DEDF3CE@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <507DDF8A.9010607@inex.ie> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DEDF5AB@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <BB219517-B488-4777-AE9C-35C57BE91263@kumari.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210171337470.7337@shell4.bayarea.net> <AC530E99-4054-4B0A-9B5C-30F9EF4A530C@kumari.net> <20121018223121.28B2C2A0041D@drugs.dv.isc.org> <50812F87.5000107@inex.ie>
In-Reply-To: <50812F87.5000107@inex.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Cc: V6 Ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:11:57 -0000

> other than causing bandwidth / pps DoS attacks, or alternatively tickling
> obscure ipv6 stack bugs, no.  At least in theory.

There's no excuse for broken IPv6 stacks that can't handle
fragmentation and reassembly. About DoS concerns, if the
network is going to intentionally break frag/reass out of
concern for edge devices that might not be able to handle
the load, then that is very bad for applications that cannot
reduce the size of packets they send down to 1280. Again,
tunnels fall into that category.

So, if tunnels cannot rely on ICMP PTB and also cannot rely
on IPv6 frag/reass then there is only one option remaining:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-seal/

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email